Re: meta_postfix:<*>

* Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-16 19:45]: > Speaking on behalf of the mere mortal, My Eyes Glaze Over. Yeah, this proposal seems to be slipping into APL territory. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

Re: meta_postfix:<*>

: and ** as repeated multiplication. Now imagine having a meta_postfix:<*> : that gives +* as multiplication (perhaps abbreviated as *) and ** as : (integer) exponentiation. We can then continue with replication as ~* : for strings and ,* for lists thus freeing x and xx as some generic : mul

Re: meta_postfix:<*>

Kealey, Martin, wrote: > Nice idea; introduces one particular ambiguity though: would > > $m ** $n > > then be > > pow($m, $n) > > or > > pow($n, $m) > > ? Neither. As with the reducing meta-operator, you would need to have the ability to define an operator that takes precedence over a meta'd

Re: meta_postfix:<*>

Dave Whipp wrote: > Jon Lang wrote: > >> So you're suggesting that >> >> A op* n >> >> should map to >> >> [op] A xx n >> > > I don't think that that mapping works for Thomas' proposal of a repetition > count on post-increment operator. I.e. > > $a ++* 3 > > is not the same as > > [++] $a xx 3

Re: meta_postfix:<*>

Jon Lang wrote: So you're suggesting that A op* n should map to [op] A xx n I don't think that that mapping works for Thomas' proposal of a repetition count on post-increment operator. I.e. $a ++* 3 is not the same as [++] $a xx 3 (which I think is a syntax error) and also not

Re: meta_postfix:<*>

So you're suggesting that A op* n should map to [op] A xx n ? -- Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang

meta_postfix:<*>

HaloO, I know that the hot phase of the operator discussions are over. But here's a little orthogonalizing idea from my side. The observation is that * can be regarded as repeated addition: 5 * 3 == 5 + 5 + 5 and ** as repeated multiplication. Now imagine having a meta_postfix:<*>